Dr. Wong

Following a 70-day medical malpractice jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $3.75 million in damages, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $3.3 million in costs and disbursements, while the defendants argued for a significantly lower amount, citing proportionality and excessive hours.

The court analyzed the Rule 57 factors, noting the complexity of the case, the necessity of extensive preparation by plaintiff's counsel, and the fact that defence costs themselves exceeded $3.2 million.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $2,404,765 for fees and $628,387 for disbursements, totaling $3,033,152.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit for the disputed period, as her subjective pain experience resulted in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a production worker.

The adjudicator also approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and the cost of prescription medication, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for the cost of a disability certificate and medical records were dismissed.

The adjudicator declined to order an award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer's decisions to withhold benefits were not unreasonable given the medical information available to it at the time.

Interest was awarded on all overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), subjecting him to a $3,500 limit.

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissing the application.

A young person was found guilty at trial of three counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of unlawful confinement committed at age 16, and pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats, one count of criminal harassment, and two counts of failing to comply with probation terms committed as an adult.

The offences were committed against the mother of his child over a prolonged period involving repeated physical and sexual violence, followed by years of harassment via social media.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years custody and community supervision for the youth offences and three years imprisonment for the adult offences, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, weapons prohibitions, and no-contact orders.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) or were not accident-related.

The Tribunal found the respondent validly denied one physiotherapy plan submitted while the applicant was still subject to the MIG.

However, the Tribunal approved the remaining physical and psychological treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's ongoing accident-related chronic pain and psychological impairments.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her negligence action arising from an injury sustained while practicing long-jump techniques at a secondary school.

The trial judge found that the school board and its employees did not breach their duty of care and met the standard of a prudent parent.

The appellant raised eleven grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's credibility assessments, factual findings, and treatment of expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no palpable and overriding error and affirming the trial judge's comprehensive reasons and conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendant, Mario Rodrigues, was charged with two counts of assault, break and enter, abduction of his daughter, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The central issue at trial was whether he was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered conflicting expert psychiatric opinions regarding the defendant's mental state and capacity to understand the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

The court found that the defendant failed to prove his NCR defence on a balance of probabilities, concluding that he knew his actions were both legally and morally wrong.

Consequently, convictions were entered on all five counts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought funding for a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent insurer partially approved the plan for psychological treatment but denied the physical therapy and chronic pain components, relying on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of his treating assessors, who diagnosed chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the remaining cost of the treatment plan, excluding transportation expenses, plus interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and a medical benefit for chiropractic treatment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the applicant's evidence and that of his medical experts lacked credibility.

Surveillance evidence contradicted the applicant's claims regarding his inability to drive and work.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and that the disputed treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator had preferred the medical evidence of the respondent's physiatrist over the appellant's physiatrist, concluding the appellant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator applied the correct legal test and that weighing conflicting medical evidence does not constitute an error of law.

The defendants, Raphael David Junior Hassan and Carol Precious Hassan, brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Nicola Federico, to attend a further defence neurological examination and to vary a prior court order regarding timelines for defence medical assessments.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants had not met the test for a further assessment and were not compliant with the existing timeline.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding a neurological assessment necessary for trial fairness given the plaintiff's ongoing neurological complaints and expert reports.

The court also extended the timeline for the assessment and the service of the responding neurological report, noting the plaintiffs' inconsistent stance on the original deadline.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits after the respondent terminated them.

The Tribunal found that while the accident caused the applicant's sprains and strains, he failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a cleaner.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's medical evidence for failing to link test results to diagnoses, preferring the respondent's medical examiners who found no specific neuromusculoskeletal abnormality.

The application for benefits and costs was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits that were denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to overwhelming evidence of a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved treatment and assessment plans for a physiatrist assessment, a neurological assessment, a psychological assessment, and psychological counselling sessions.

However, the Tribunal denied claims for attendant care benefits, an attendant care assessment, assistive devices, and further chiropractic treatments, finding that the applicant was largely independent in his activities of daily living and that facility-based physical therapy was no longer reasonable and necessary.

The plaintiff, a high school student, sued her coach, principal, and school board for negligence after sustaining a knee injury during track and field practice.

The court found that the defendants met the standard of care of a careful and prudent parent, and that the plaintiff's current physical condition and occupational aspirations were not causally related to the injury.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Zhen Ling Yan, to attend defence psychological, neurological, and physiatry assessments in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) as the action was set down for trial.

The Master found leave was not required, distinguishing between setting an action down for trial and consenting to it being placed on a trial list under Rule 48.06(1).

The Master further found the assessments necessary for trial fairness, given the plaintiff's claims of serious injuries and expert reports.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff's motor vehicle accident action was dismissed after failing to meet the statutory threshold, despite a jury awarding $30,000 in general damages.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found that the defendant's counsel engaged in uncivil conduct, failed to cooperate on a joint document brief, delivered late expert reports, and repeatedly ignored a trial management order and court deadlines.

Although the defendant was the successful party and would normally be entitled to costs of approximately $100,000, the court exercised its discretion to deprive the defendant of costs due to counsel's misconduct.

The defendant was ordered to pay $441.13 for half the copying costs of the joint document brief.

In this motor vehicle damages trial, liability was admitted and the jury assessed damages only.

The court then determined a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act and held the plaintiff failed to prove that the collision caused either the alleged chronic pain syndrome or a later gastric volvulus.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings, relied on conflicting medical evidence, and concluded causation had not been established on a balance of probabilities.

Although the jury awarded $30,000 in general damages, the statutory deductible eliminated the award and the action was dismissed.

Following a jury verdict in a motor vehicle accident trial awarding modest general damages and future care costs, the defendants brought a post-verdict threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act seeking a declaration that the plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for recovery of non-pecuniary damages and related health care expenses.

The court reviewed the medical evidence concerning the plaintiff’s pre-existing shoulder injury from an earlier accident and alleged exacerbation from the subject accident.

The judge found that the plaintiff already had a permanent disability prior to the second accident and that the evidence did not establish a new permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court also found insufficient evidence linking the plaintiff’s later low back complaints to the accident.

Considering the medical evidence and the modest jury awards, the court concluded that the statutory threshold was not met.

During a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to qualify a chiropractor as an expert to testify about an in‑home functional assessment.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the proposed testimony satisfied the admissibility criteria for expert evidence under R. v. Mohan.

The judge found the proposed opinion exceeded the witness’s professional expertise, overlapped with evidence already provided by more qualified medical experts, and largely repeated the plaintiff’s own testimony.

Because the proposed evidence lacked necessity and probative value, the witness was not qualified as an expert.

The ruling emphasizes the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in scrutinizing expert evidence and preventing unnecessary or duplicative expert testimony.

A motion to change a child support order brought by the biological father seeking to reduce his child support obligation retroactively based on his actual income, and to obtain access to his daughter.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to terminate the relationship between the child and father.

The court found that there had been a change in circumstances justifying modification of the original order.

The father's child support obligation was maintained at $188 per month based on imputed income of $23,500, as the court found he was intentionally underemployed.

The court rejected the father's request to reduce or rescind arrears.

Access was granted on a supervised basis with a detailed schedule for gradual expansion over one year, subject to multiple conditions including counselling, drug and alcohol testing, and restrictions on smoking and substance use.